Final Recommendation

William G. Shoobridge
The Honorable

William G. Shoobridge

District Court Judge
5th Judicial District --
Chaves, Eddy, and Lea Counties
General Jurisdiction Court

Year: 2020

Recommendation: Retain

Election Results:

Evaluation: Judge William Shoobridge received a quite positive overall evaluation. Judge Shoobridge received high ratings from attorneys for being attentive to the proceedings, for his knowledge of the law, for displaying familiarity with court cases through prior preparation, and for his ability to decisively rule on procedural and substantive matters. The court staff and resource staff (e.g., law enforcement, probation and parole officers, interpreters, etc.) rated him positively on all attributes.

Experience & Education: Judge Shoobridge graduated from Indiana University and received his law degree from Indiana University in 1974. He was appointed as a District Court Judge in 2008 and was subsequently elected in November 2008. Judge Shoobridge is a former Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial District. His prior community involvement includes the Lea County Judicial Complex Committee, the Lea County Pro Bono Committee, and Chairman of the Lea County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee. While in private practice, Judge Shoobridge was an AV rated attorney by Martindale-Hubble and an inductee into the Southwest Super Lawyers and Top 100 Trial Lawyers.

PERCENTAGE THAT AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THE JUDGE EXHIBITS POSITIVE QUALITIES IN EACH CATEGORY *

Attorneys (n=58, 32% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 91% 7% 2%
Fair and Impartial 87% 10% 3%
Knowledgeable of Law 91% 6% 3%
Communication is Clear 95% 4% 2%
Appropriate Demeanor 89% 10% 2%
Properly Controls Proceedings 93% 5% 2%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Court Staff (n=51, 74% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 94% 6% 0%
Fair and Impartial N/A N/A N/A
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear N/A N/A N/A
Appropriate Demeanor N/A N/A N/A
Properly Controls Proceedings N/A N/A N/A
Respects Court Employees 94% 6% 0%
Jurors (n=39, 25% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 100% 0% 0%
Fair and Impartial 100% 0% 0%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 100% 0% 0%
Appropriate Demeanor 99% 1% 0%
Properly Controls Proceedings 100% 0% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Resource Staff (n=49, 11% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 100% 0% 0%
Fair and Impartial 94% 6% 0%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 94% 6% 0%
Appropriate Demeanor 100% 0% 0%
Properly Controls Proceedings 100% 0% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A

* On the tables above, the "Agree" columns are comprised of the strongly agree and agree responses. Similarly, the "Disagree" columns are comprised of the strongly disagree and disagree responses. The combined percentage of "Agree", "Disagree", and "Partly Agree/Partly Disagree" for each category may not equal 100% due to rounding error. "N/A" indicates that the category is "not applicable" because some populations were not asked certain questions.

 

PERCENTAGE THAT RECOMMEND THE JUDGE BE RETAINED OR NOT BE RETAINED IN OFFICE. ‡

Attorney Retain Recommendation Bar ChartCourt Staff Retain Recommendation Bar ChartResource Staff Retain Recommendation Bar Chart

‡ On the charts above, the "Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend retain and somewhat recommend retain responses. Similarly, the "Do Not Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend not retain and somewhat recommend not retain responses.

 

Privacy Policy

Back to top